John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Mr. Speaker, when we began this quest several years ago, our object was to make Medicare better by filing a big gap in its coverage. This conference report covers that gap with a drug benefit that is barely adequate and badly in need of redesign. The bill then goes on not to make Medicare better, but to move Medicare toward privatization, heavily subsidizing managed care with funds that could better be used to improve the meager drug coverage this bill provides. I will vote against this bill not to kill it but to send it back to an open conference, where all participate, in an effort to make the bill worthy of our senior citizens who badly need this coverage, and depend on Medicare. Here are some of the problems and objections that I find with this bill: H.R. 1 couples meager drug coverage with major changes that move medicare toward privatization. The terms of coverage seem reasonable at first until you realize that they are not guaranteed. The premium of $35, the deductible of $250, and the co-payment of 25 percent are illustrative of what insurance companies may offer, but not written in stone. In any event, coverage stops after $2,250, just when it is needed most, and catastrophic coverage does apply until one has spent $5,100. For this first $5,100 in coverage, the consumer pays $4,020. Put another way, the plan pays 20 percent the consumer pays 80 percent. Catastrophic coverage starts after $5,100 has been spent, and seems reasonable, until you realize that this threshold, like all the other terms of coverage, is indexed to the rising cost of prescription drugs, and is likely to double in ten years. This is meager coverage, and a poor trade-off for all the changes crammed into this package to move Medicare toward privatization. H.R. 1 contains a drug benefit that is flawed and needs to be fixed before it becomes law. Rather than providing continuous coverage, the Medicare benefit has a $2,850 gap in coverage that will leave millions of seniors without drug coverage for a good part of the year, even though they continue to pay premiums. The drug benefit has a deductible of $250, and a coverage gap that begins at $2,250 in drug spending and ends at $5,100. According to CBO, this coverage gap of $2,850 will double to $5,065 by 2013. The structure of the benefit means that there will be several months out of the year when seniors are paying premiums and are not receiving any additional drug coverage. This odd benefit design, with its coverage gap does not currently exist as an insurance product. H.R. 1 needlessly complicates prescription drug coverage by making it available only through private insurance policies and not through medicare. Even through stand-alone drug policies don't exist, and health insurance companies, fearing adverse selection, have made clear that they do not wish to write it, this bill provides primarily for private insurance coverage. Out of disdain for Medicare, the bill does not choose the simple solution and make drug coverage a feature of Medicare. Instead, in one of many steps toward privatization, this bill calls for drug coverage to be written by private insurance companies, adding unnecessary cost, complexity, and uncertainty. H.R. 1 requires that drug coverage be purchased from a private insurance company even when there is only one underwriter and no competition. In regions where only one insurance company offers a drug- alone policy, Medicare will not provide ``fallback'' coverage under this bill, so long as there is a Medicare PPO or HOM in the area. The beneficiary will have three unappealing choices: take the coverage at a non-competitive price, leave Medicare fee-for-service and join the HMO, or go without drug coverage. H.R. 1 bars the Federal Government from using the purchasing power of 40 million seniors to drive down the price of drugs--H.R. 1 flat prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating better prices for prescription drugs. The bill divides Medicare's 41 million beneficiaries into numerous regions and to one or more private plans within each region. This fragmentation runs contrary to trends at the state level, where states have used the purchasing power of big beneficiary pools to negotiate better prices. This prohibition also flies in the face of prevailing federal practice, which requires government officials to seek the best possible price when spending the taxpayers' money--especially when spending $400 billion. H.R. 1 overpays HMOs to induce them to join medicare and draw seniors into private plans--H.R. 1 provides $16.5 billion to sweeten subsidies paid to managed care plans and induce them to enter markets they have not found profitable. After spending billions to subsidize managed care plans, this bill then forces traditional Medicare to compete with the plans. This competition, known benignly as ``premium support,'' will destabilize Medicare as we have known it and lead to premium increases for seniors who want to stay with the government-run program. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Medicare already overpays managed care plans by 19.6 percent. They are paid 19.6 percent more than their members would cost if enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare. H.R. 1 increases HMO payments by another $4.5 billion and sets up a $12 billion fund to induce private plans to enter new markets. According to MedPAC, these changes will result in overpayments to managed care plans of 25 percent. Medicare fee-for-service will then have to compete with private plans in six metropolitan areas starting in 2010. Obviously, the increased payments will allow private plans an advantage in the competition, one they will enhance by marketing their services to healthy seniors. Managed care plans have a record of designing and marketing benefit packages that appeal to healthy beneficiaries. As private plans ``cherry pick'' healthier beneficiaries, traditional Medicare will be stuck with sicker, more expensive beneficiaries. If competing private plans run costs below traditional Medicare, the beneficiaries in fee- for-service Medicare will be assessed the difference through their Part B premiums. Traditional Medicare premiums will spiral upwards, forcing seniors who cannot afford the rising premiums to move into private plans that limit their access to doctors. The process will repeat itself year after year, beginning an insurance `'death spiral'' that will destroy traditional Medicare. H.R. 1 will cause over six million low-income seniors to be worse off--The 6.4 million low-income and disabled individuals who now receive health coverage from both Medicare and Medicaid will be worse off under this bill. Under current law, when a benefit or service is covered by both Medicare and Medicaid Medicare serves as the primary payer and Medicaid ``wraps around'' that coverage. Medicaid fills gaps in coverage that exist under the Medicare benefit. Medicaid also picks up most or all of the beneficiary co-payments that Medicare charges. This bill largely eliminates Medicaid's supplemental--or ``wrap around``--coverage under the new Medicare drug benefit. As a result, substantial numbers of poor elderly and disabled people would be forced to pay more for their prescriptions than they now do. In addition, in cases where Medicaid covers a prescription drug but the private plan that administers the Medicare drug benefit in the local area does not provide that particular drug under Medicare, poor, elderly and disabled beneficiaries who now receive the drug through Medicaid could lose access to it. Under current law, low-income beneficiaries have co-payments that run from zero to as high as $3; but these amounts do not increase from year to year. The conference report raises cost-sharing for those with the lowest incomes by requiring $1 and $3 co-payments for beneficiaries whose income is less than $8,980 a year and $2 and $5 co-payments for beneficiaries whose income is between $8,980 and $12,123 a year. In addition, the $1 and $3 co-payments grow at CPI (1.5 percent to 3 percent). The $2 and $5 co-payments will rise at the same level as prescription drug spending, which is projected to average 10 percent a year, far exceeding the annual 1.5-3 percent. Social Security COLAs. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this provision will result in higher drug costs for 4.8 million seniors. H.R. 1 will cause nearly 3 million seniors to lose retiree coverage-- According to CBO, some employers will stop providing retiree coverage due to the structure of the drug bill, and this will result in 2.7 million seniors losing retiree drug coverage, in many cases far better than this plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 11.7 million seniors currently have retiree coverage through their former employers. However, 23% of these seniors, or 2.7 million individuals, will lose this coverage. This loss of coverage results from the structure of the drug benefit, which gives employers an incentive to drop retiree coverage. The drug bill targets Federal assistance toward those seniors who lack supplemental private drug coverage, most noticeably through the requirement that payments made by supplemental coverage don't count toward the beneficiaries' out-of-pocket limit. In effect, the out-of- pocket provision reduces Federal subsidies for beneficiaries with supplemental insurance. As a result, it provides a clear financial disincentive for employers to supplement the benefit. Second, some employers see the enactment of a drug benefit as an opportunity to reduce the costs and risks of providing drug coverage. H.R. 1 spends nearly $7 billion on tax shelters for the healthy and wealthy--Rather than marshaling funds to improve drug coverage, H.R. 1 diverts $7 billion to Health Security Accounts, which have nothing to do with Medicare drug coverage, and create an unprecedented tax break, which could undermine our employer-sponsored insurance system. Under H.R. 1, tax-advantaged savings accounts to pay out-of-pocket medical expenses would be made universally available. These could be used with high-deductible health policies, but not with the comprehensive health coverage traditionally offered by employers. Holders of these accounts could make tax-deductible deposits, watch the earnings compound tax-free, and pay no tax upon withdrawal if the funds are used for medical expenses. This would establish an unprecedented and lucrative tax shelter. In the existing tax code, when funds deposited in a tax-favored account are deductible, withdrawals are taxed. On the other hands, withdrawals are not taxed when deposits are not deducted. There is no precedent in the tax code for providing both ``front end'' and ``back end'' tax breaks. The political pressure to do the same for other types of savings and retirement accounts could become irresistible. A proliferation of such tax-free accounts would only send Federal deficits higher. These savings accounts would also undermine comprehensive health insurance. Healthy, affluent workers would have an incentive to opt out of comprehensive health insurance in favor of the Health Security Accounts. They would receive a large tax break, and would not be much affected by switching to a high-deductible health policy since they generally use fewer health services. If large numbers of such workers opt out of comprehensive plans, the pool of people left in comprehensive plans would be older and sicker, causing premiums for comprehensive insurance to rise significantly. That, in turn, would drive still more healthy workers out of comprehensive insurance, making those that remain even more costly to insure, adding pressure on employers to stop offering comprehensive coverage. Older and sicker workers could wind up paying more for health coverage or losing it altogether and becoming uninsured. This suggests what could be done to make this bill better if it were taken back to a fair and open conference committee. The $7 billion allocated to Health Security Accounts and the $17 billion allocated to subsidizing HMOs could be used instead to narrow the ``doughnut hole,'' the zone where there is no coverage between $2,250 and $5,100. This is just one example of how this bill can be fixed and improved, and should be before it is passed.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support of H.R. 3287, which honors four South Carolina heroes. Because of the courage of Joseph A. DeLaine, Harry Briggs, Eliza Briggs and Levi Pearson, South Carolinians live in a better State; but more important, Americans live in a better country. I can think of no tribute to these brave South Carolinians more deserving or appropriate than a Congressional Gold Medal. I have the same story to tell that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) just told, but I cannot possibly tell it with the same empathy that he related it, so I will not rehearse the facts that we have just heard, which are stirring. I will enter those for the Record. Let me simply say that, Mr. Speaker, I have lived all my life in South Carolina. I can imagine the resistance and intimidation that Joseph DeLaine and Levi Pearson and Harry and Eliza Briggs faced. These brave Americans stood up for justice, and for their courage they paid a heavy price. Today we remember Dr. Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall, and we should. They were the giants of the civil rights movement. But without brave pioneers, foot soldiers like Joseph A. DeLaine, Levi Pearson, and Harry and Eliza Briggs, our schools would not have been desegregated in 1954. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1965 may have been passed but not in those years. They sparked those events. I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for conceiving and spearheading this resolution. I ask that all Members of the House join us in voting to award Congressional Gold Medals posthumously to the Reverend DeLaine, to Mr. and Mrs. Harry Briggs, and to Mr. Levi Pearson. In the words of Dr. King, they made this country rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, that all men are created equal. Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support of H.R. 3287, honoring four South Carolina heroes. Because of the courage of Joseph DeLaine, Harry Briggs, Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson, South Carolinians live in a better state and Americans live in a better country. I can think of no tribute to these brave South Carolinians more deserving or appropriate than a Congressional Gold Medal. In 1949-50, there were 6,531 black students enrolled in the Clarendon County public schools and 2,375 whites. The schools were separate and unequal. Clarendon County that year spent $179 per white student and $43 per black student. Reverend Joseph DeLaine was a teacher in Clarendon County. He attended a statewide meeting of the NAACP and heard the president decry segregation and lay down a challenge saying, ``No teacher or preacher in South Carolina has the courage to find a plaintiff who will test the legality of discriminatory bus transportation.'' The Reverend DeLaine was moved to action. He went to the Clarendon County School Board to ask for a bus to carry children to and from Scotts Branch High School. He pointed out that bus service was available to white students at other county schools, and asked simply for the same bus service for black students attending Scotts Branch. When he was turned down, he appealed to the State Superintendent of Education in Columbia and the U.S. Attorney General, all to no avail. Reverend DeLaine then enlisted Levi Pearson, a farmer with children at Scotts Branch, to be plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Clarendon County Board of Education. Levi Pearson v. County Board of Education was brought but dismissed in 1948 on a technicality. Levi Pearson's farm straddled the school district boundary, and his home was held to be outside the school district's boundary. The court ruled that Pearson had no standing, and dismissed his suit. Undaunted, Reverend DeLaine, worked with the NAACP to draft a new petition to the State Board of Education seeking not just school buses, but educational equality across the board for all black students in Clarendon County. A petition with the necessary signatures was presented to the board. The first name listed was Harry Briggs, a service station attendant in Summerton, South Carolina. In retribution, Reverend DeLaine was fired from his job at Scotts Branch, and Harry Briggs lost his service station job. The state school board refused to act. Reverend DeLaine then sought the assistance of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and in particular a lawyer by the name of Harold Boulware in Columbia. Boulware, with the assistance of Thurgood Marshall, took the case and filed a new suit, Briggs v. Elliott, seeking equal educational opportunities for all black students in Clarendon County. By a 2-1 vote, a three-judge panel denied the plaintiffs in Briggs v. Elliott the relief they were seeking. Judge Waties Waring, another unsung hero, wrote a dissenting opinion in favor of the plaintiffs. Briggs v. Elliott was appealed to the Supreme Court, and eventually consolidated with four other cases, the first of which was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Reverend DeLaine was in the Supreme Court's courtroom for the argument of Brown v. Board of Education. A reporter quoted him as saying: ``There were times when I thought I would go out of my mind because of this case, but if I had to do it again, I would. I feel it was worth it. I have a feeling that the Supreme Court is going to end segregation.'' He was not only brave but prescient. In 1954, a unanimous Supreme Court vindicated the efforts of the Reverend Joseph A. DeLaine with its unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education. It was a bittersweet victory for Reverend DeLaine. Forced out of Clarendon County on charges arising out of a confrontation with whites who threatened his home at night, he moved to Charlotte, North Carolina where he founded a church. Because of the outstanding warrant, he was effectively exiled from South Carolina and never able to return to Clarendon County. Mr. Speaker, I have lived all my life in South Carolina and I can imagine the resistance and intimidation that Joseph DeLaine, Levi Pearson, and Harry and Eliza Briggs faced. These brave Americans stood up for justice and for their courage, they paid a heavy price. Today we remember Dr. Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall, as we should; they were the giants of the civil rights movement. But without brave pioneers like Joseph DeLaine, Levi Pearson, Harry and Eliza Briggs, our schools would not have been desegregated and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 would not have been passed. I commend Congressman Clyburn for conceiving and spearheading this resolution, and I ask that all members of this House join us in voting to award Congressional gold medals posthumously to the Reverend DeLaine, to Mr. and Mrs. Harry Briggs, and to Mr. Levi Pearson. In the words of Dr. King, they made this country ``rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, that all men are created equal.''

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I am glad to see us put some quality-of-life provisions in it; and I commend the chairman, whom I have worked with for 20-odd years, for once again bringing a bill to closure. I do have to call attention to the fact that this rule waives all points of order, which is typical; but in this case, as ranking member of the Budget Committee, I feel obliged to make my colleagues aware what it is we are waiving because it is not a good way to do business; it is not a good way to keep a budget. This conference report contains two provisions that entail significant spending over and above the amounts allowed in the budget resolution. One allows concurrent receipt of military retirement benefits for retirees who also get VA disability benefits. The other commits the government to lease and purchase up to 20 or maybe even 100 new tanker aircraft. No funds were added to this conference report to pay for either of these programs, and that is my problem. Between the two of them, they will entail new unfunded future commitments of approximately $40 billion, $22 billion for concurrent receipt, $18 billion for 100 new tanker aircraft. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I support the compromise on concurrent receipt, and I understand the need for new tankers; but I am concerned, and have to be, about the way we are doing this. The rule before us would waive the point of order that would otherwise lie against the conference report for some clear and substantial departures from the budget resolution that is supposed to be prevailing in this House. We just finished the fiscal year 2003, Mr. Speaker, with the largest deficit in our peacetime history, $374 billion. The deficit for next year, fiscal year 2004, is likely to break that by $100 billion, even without the additional cost of these programs which are not included in any of CBO's or OMB's projections. All I am saying is if concurrent receipt is a worthy benefit, and I think it is, then let us pay for it or at least let us recognize fully in the budget the cost of it. If we need these tankers, and I accept the arguments that we do, then let us pay for them. Let us make the argument and pay for them and set the priority in the budget. This bill does not do that, and this rule would allow Congress to flout the budget resolution without facing up to these costs. If Congress feels that it is necessary to abandon the budget resolution that supposedly prevails in the House and further increases the deficit, then we ought to be accountable for that decision. But this rule would make sure that no Member of this body will have the opportunity to demand such accountability. Let me tell the Members specifically the two problems in the conference report with respect to these items that give me trouble. The conference report phases in a compromised version of concurrent receipt. In 2004 this would increase direct spending by $800 million. By 2013 this would increase annual cost to as much as $3.5 billion. This provision would cost an estimated $22 billion in additional direct spending over the next 10 years, none of which is provided for in the mandatory spending provisions of the budget resolution. That is why I call it a substantial departure. There is another anomaly in the way concurrent receipt is treated. Since the mid-1980s, we have recognized military retirement costs through an accrual system that sets aside funds to cover the cost of retirement benefits we owe in the future for today's military service. The concurrent receipt provisions in this bill eliminate a reduction or offset in military retirement and thus increase military retirement benefits. Under current procedures, we should increase our accrual payments to account for the fact that we have just increased future spending on retirement benefits. This bill does not do that. It departs from a convention we adopted 20 years ago for reporting military retirement programs. The conference agreement also includes language that was not in either bill to lease 20 tankers and then buy 80 more. In effect, what it allows is incremental funding, something we have not done for big procurement programs for a long, long time. It entails at least a liability of $4 billion, maybe as much as $18 billion, and yet none of this money is in the Air Force budget. None of this authority has been recognized. What we have here is an effort to obscure the fact that we are increasing the defense budget but not adding BA commensurate to the amount of the increase. There are committees right now and next week railing against corporate misaccounting in this country and should be. But we should keep our own books in proper order in order to make such criticisms. This is not a way to budget. I support the bill and hope it does not constitute a precedent for the future.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, with a defense budget of $400 billion and an enormous range of issues, it is not easy to bring a conference to closure, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), as well as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for what they have achieved. I rise in support of H.R. 1588, the conference report thereon, but I have some real concerns. First of all, I have already spoken to the failure of the underlying bill to accrue properly the budget authority that will be necessary to implement the compromise on concurrent receipt or the provisions for lease purchase of 100 tankers. I am concerned about the radical reform of civil service laws in the Department of Defense and the dispensation this bill gives to the Department of Defense from environmental laws that apply to everybody else. Also, I am concerned about the new and cumbersome strictures on cooperative threat reduction. I am particularly disappointed in the provisions of this report that deal with low-level nuclear weapons. I believe the conferees should have stuck with the bipartisan compromise reached by the Committee on Armed Services and set forth in the defense bill that we passed last May. That compromise was sound enough that in July of this year when I offered a motion to instruct, those provisions were accepted and upheld by the House without dissent. The administration began this year by stepping up its push for repeal on a ban of low-level nuclear weapons research and development, a ban which has been in the law for 10 years. There was little opposition here to broadening research into low-yield nuclear weapons, but there was bipartisan concern about going so far as engineering development. And so both the House and Senate authorization bills proposed changes to allow research into low-yield nuclear weapons, but restricted any move into engineering development. The Senate, on the other hand, repealed the so-called Spratt-Furse amendment entirely, but then backfilled the cavity with caveats barring testing or deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons. They also added language requiring specific congressional authorization to move into development of any advanced nuclear concept project. These are the provisions included in the conference report. By contrast, the House version amended existing law rather than repealing it. We explicitly authorized research, but we maintained a bar on development beyond detailed feasibility studies, the so-called 6.2a level of research and development. Our compromise may have similar in consequences to the Senate approach, but I think it was superior in form because it makes clear that it is the policy of the United States not to develop low-yield tactical nuclear weapons. The House compromise, thus, gives stronger assurance that Congress will be an equal partner if that policy is reversed, if that decision is taken, and if there is a move to go beyond research. When we adopted the Spratt-Furse amendment in the early 1990s, it came in the wake of an issue taken by the first President Bush whereby we withdrew a number of tactical nuclear weapons from Europe and the Soviets responded in kind. This was a step back and a step forward for nuclear security throughout the world. This initiative helped us later on to persuade Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus to forswear nuclear weapons. If today the United States should move toward renewed development of nuclear weapons, especially weapons designed to be more usable due to their low-yield warheads, it sends the wrong signal. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report because it does many things I support, particularly for the quality of life for our troops, and also because I trust that the effect of the language in the report will be enough to forestall development of mini-nukes. I recommend support for the bill.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an old friend and dear colleague. Frank McCloskey and I came to Congress together in 1983, and for all the time that he served here, we sat beside each other on the Committee on Armed Services. I enjoyed him as a person. He became a good friend. I admired him as a colleague. I learned a lot from him. Frank was plain and unpretentious, but beneath a serious and even studious sort of demeanor, he was passionate about the things that he believed in and dogged in their pursuit. He stayed on top of the issues. We get confronted continually with issue of all sorts. I will never forget the morning after Reagan made his SDI speech, March 1983. Frank was the one member of the committee then who was probing the Defense Department witnesses about strategic defense. He was skeptical but he was always, always informed and diligent and fair- minded as a critic. Long before Srebrenica, he was troubled, deeply, personally conflicted about the war and current issues in the Balkans, and he was an early advocate and lone supporter of our intervention there. There were those who said it was not feasible, it was not possible or it was not desirable, but in the long run Frank McCloskey's position was vindicated. Frank McCloskey was not glib. He was not flashy. He was not smooth. He was not, in Sam Rayburn's famous analogy, a show horse, but he was a workhorse. He took his job seriously and never himself. He was never one to preen or pontificate. There was no conceit about him. He was a plain spoken Hoosier who worked hard in the House, worked hard for his constituents, and every election ran hard to hold on to his seat. Frank was gone from the House before we really knew it, and now he is gone altogether. Naming this post office after him is completely appropriate, though it seems a small gesture. This does give us, however, at least the chance to say to an old colleague whom we greatly respected, well done. Well done for all the years you served here. Well done in all your friendships you have given to us, and also to say to Frank and his family, we have never forgotten you, and this bill proves it. I hope this post office will also give his constituents, whom he served so well, cause to remember him and all that he did for them. Our hearts go out to his family. We understand their grief. We share their loss, but we hope that they will take solace in hearing his old colleagues here in the House say that the years he spent here were years well spent in service to his country. While he left here more than 8 years ago, I believe his example still shines among us, as the passage of this resolution will demonstrate.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Commerce Department released the growth rate for the third quarter. It was good news, welcome news, the kind of news we can all cheer. According to the Commerce Department, the economy grew at a rate of 7.2 percent in the third quarter this year. Now, we all doubt, the President and all the rest of us, that this pace can be sustained, but we all hope that it signals the start of a strong recovery because, Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time coming. Most Americans will be surprised to hear it, but this economy officially moved out of recession 2 years ago, November 2001. And yet for 3 solid years, ever since even the recovery from the recession, the official recovery, the economy has continued to creep along, to scrape bottom. All together, we have had a net job loss in the private sector since 2001 of 3.2 million jobs; 3.2 million jobs have been lost; 2.6 to 2.7 million of those jobs have been lost in manufacturing, some of the best jobs we have got. And I am afraid some of those jobs are not coming back, even if the economy recovers. So before anybody hangs out a ``mission accomplished'' banner over this economy, I think it is important we recognize tonight and henceforth that there is a lot left to be done. Here in a nutshell is what this administration has been able to accomplish, or not accomplish, on its watch with respect to the budget and the economy since January of 2001, things that still cry out for correction, notwithstanding the growth rate that we are experiencing right now. This chart shows that the private sector has shed 3.2 million jobs. That is the worst job record since the Hoover administration, the Great Depression. Long-term unemployment, that is, people who are unemployed for 6 months or more, has tripled. That is when it really begins to get tough. The growth in the economy over the last 3 years, it has grown, it has not been all recession, but the growth has been 2.1 percent on average for 3 straight years. There is only one administration in history who has a worse record than that, that is George Walker Herbert Bush in the 1990s, early 1990s. Real business investment, that is investment in productive assets, business assets that generate jobs and generate profits, has fallen 6.6 percent a year, the worst rate for real business investment since the Second World War. And our other deficit, the so-called balance-the-payments deficit, the trade gap, has also increased by $100 billion over the last 3 years. Let me just show you in further detail more about what has happened to the economy. Growth during this administration, 2.1 percent for the last 3 years. As I said, to find an administration with a worse record since the beginning of the Truman administration, the end of the Second World War, you only go back to the Bush administration. Every other administration has experienced better growth than that. The unemployment rate has increased from 6 million people to 8 million people. You can see from this chart what has happened to unemployment. It has gone from 4 percent to as high as 6.5 percent and now rests at around 6.1 percent, persistent unemployment, even though we pulled out of the recession. Let me make that point more clearly. As I said earlier, the economy pulled out of recession in November of 2001. Now, in all of the postwar recessions since the end of the Second World War, if you measure them in jobs lost and jobs recovered, from peak to peak the length of the business cycle downturn has been about 26, 27 months. And here you see that average recession plotted on this chart. You also see across the bottom the red line which indicates the path of this recession. Typically, in every other recession of nine that have occurred since the end of the Second World War at about the 13th, 14th month, you begin to see the job recovery. We begin to regain the jobs that we have lost in the first 13 months. And by the 25th or 26th month we are back to where we were a couple of years before, the jobs have been restored. But look what has happened here. In the 13th, 14th, 15th month of this recession, this red line keeps going down. It does not turn up. And this is where we are right now today in November of 2003, barely holding our own, hardly improving at all over the dismal loss of 3.2 million jobs over the last 3 years. That is what is happening to jobs in our economy. That is why this is a jobless recovery. That is not just a turn of phrase, that is not just some rhetorical creation. This is a jobless and a joyless recovery. That is why the people in this country have not felt the recovery even now officially when we did recover in November of 2001. Now, one of the concerns that we all have when you look at this 7.2 percent growth rate is that it represents one quarter. You have to ask yourself what does the future hold? We hope that this means that the economy as a whole is beginning to pick up. But we have, I think, reason to be worried about the long-run future, not the next several months, not the next quarter, not the next year, but 3 years from now, 10 years from now, 15 years from now when we look at what it has cost to turn this economy around and in terms of tax cuts. The Bush administration is sure to credit what has happened to the tax cuts that it has implemented, three different series of tax cuts over the last 3 years, totalling about $3 trillion in all in revenue reduction. And they say that this has been the key factor in turning the economy around. Of course, it has played a significant part, I am sure. But we argued all along that this same level of stimulus could be achieved with a lot less damage to the long-term budget, that you could have short-term stimulus with the right tax cuts and still have long- term balance. And that is where the Bush administration comes up short. Because you will see that in running the budget, running this economy, in trying to deal with the recession, in putting through ahead of everything else preemptively its series of three tax cuts we have seen here this red line here the most precipitous decline, the most drastic reversal in the fiscal fortunes of the United States since at least the Second World War, maybe since Woodrow Wilson. It has just been a tremendous decrease. Here in a nutshell is what has happened. In the year 2000, fiscal year 2000, the Government of the United States booked a surplus of $236 billion. That was 4 years ago. Hard to believe, but we had a surplus 4 years ago of $236 billion. Three years ago the Bush administration came to office with an advantage that few administrations in history, none in this country, have enjoyed and that is a budget surplus, big-time surplus. And they had some major decisions to make, but they went first and foremost with their tax cuts. Their economists looked out over the next 10 years, and they foresaw surpluses totalling $5.6 trillion between 2002 and 2011. In 3 years they have changed that picture from a cumulative surplus of $5.6 trillion to a cumulative deficit of nearly $4 trillion, 3.5 to $4 trillion if you simply assume that what we know to be on the Bush agenda is implemented and carried out over that period of time with respect to prescription drugs, with respect to the war in Iraq, with respect to other tax cuts which it is still calling for. And when you factor that all in, we see not a surplus of $5.6 trillion but a deficit of 3.5 to $4 trillion. And that is the question we would like to address tonight. We are pleased, we are excited, we are hopeful to see the 7.8 percent growth rate that the economy racked up in the last quarter. But we have to stand back and ask ourselves at what cost have we come, what long- term damage have we done to the budget in getting here. Let me show you one little piece of math that everybody can understand. If you take the tax cuts that have been implemented to date and look just at the cumulative cost in terms of revenues lost to date, which is about $860 billion, and you divide that by the jobs that the Treasury Department, the Commerce Department claims have been created during this period of time so that we would have had, they say, 5.2 million jobs lost but for the tax cuts, instead of 3.2 million jobs lost we would have 5 million but for the fact that these tax cuts have actually generated a total of 2 million jobs, divide the cost of the tax cuts through this year by the jobs created, it comes to $3,420,000 per job in terms of revenues lost to the Treasury. That is the situation we want to talk to you about tonight. Where are we going? The budgets that have been produced here, the deficits that have been generated over the last 3 years have been generated with an attitude almost of indifference to the bottom line as if the deficits being run were not consequential, as if they will be wiped out, which we know they will not. All the forecasts of the deficits we will talk about tonight assume that the economy will be growing at 3 percent and we are still accumulating deficits of 3 to $4 trillion despite that rate of growth. But they, nevertheless, have been incurred without any kind of sense of urgency or consequential effects. It seems to be that those who are overseeing this budget believe that these numbers are not consequential. We believe, those of us here in this Chamber, those on this side of the aisle, and many in this House, we believe those numbers are consequential and they will affect our future and that once we get this economy up and running and on its feet again, it is going to hit hurdle after hurdle as it has to deal with the fact that these huge deficits are there, record deficits, 3, 4, $500 billion a year. They will have several different effects on our economy. One is the government itself will have to pay more interest every year, bigger and bigger sums in interest, so eventually we will have to raise taxes to pay just interest. That creates cynicism in the American public because they are paying taxes to their government and seeing nothing in return for it, just interest payments. And, secondly, when the government goes into the open markets to finance its 4 or $500 billion deficits every year, it crowds out private borrowers and runs up the costs of capital. What are the consequences in the long run of the policies we have been pursuing for the last 3 years? That is the question we pose tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) to respond to the issues we have just raised.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I will take a minute or two, if I could. As I was saying, General Keane came before our committee and said that he had been to Walter Reed and he met there a young soldier who had lost his eyesight and lost a limb, badly injured. You may have heard this story. He said, ``We cannot put that soldier back in the Army. We would love to do it, and he would love to come back because he has been a good troop. But I tell you what we can do,'' he said, ``we can give him a mentor to help him every step of the way. We can see that he can learn to read braille. We can help him get a college education. We can reintegrate him into civil society again, into the civilian society again.'' But it will cost money to do all of those things. That money is not in this bill. We put $50 million in there so that Jack Keane's vision can become a reality. Good provision. There are a number of other provisions in there. There is one in particular that I would like to mention, Mr. Chairman, and that is small business loans for Reservists. I am reacting to problems I am hearing from Guard and Reserve people who have left behind small businesses, a dry cleaner in one instance, their wife is trying to run it. They will probably going to need to borrow some money before it is all over with. Surely, we could put something in the bill somewhere for the SBA to help these folks obtain a loan to keep their business going. Finally, there is a bill here at the desk which would provide a deduction for Reservists and Guard personnel who travel more than a certain distance to get to their point of duty or for deployment. It is right here at the desk. We ought to take that bill and make those expenses deductible. Exempts the $6,000 death gratuity from income taxes. This is another idea with bipartisan support. The death gratuity, modest as it is, should not be subject to federal income taxes. My amendment would ensure that it is not. This amendment provides $50 million to enhance DOD-VA transition programs for disabled service members. At an Armed Services Committee hearing a couple of months ago, General Jack Keane, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, talked of a serviceman blinded and badly injured in Iraq. He told our committee that the Army was going to take care of the young man, but he was more specific than that. He spoke of mentoring him, of helping him go to college, and providing him with training so that he could reintegrate into civilian life. This is the right thing to do, but it will not be easy or free. My amendment provides resources to help make General Keane's vision a reality for our disabled veterans. My amendment contains several other provisions, also designed to provide a lift to our troops and their families. Some of these provisions may be subject to points of order, but they are all moves that would directly benefit America's fighting men and women and the families. My amendment would take the increases (to $250/month) in committee bill and make that higher level permanent. In so doing, the Congress can address an area of real uncertainty that has brought anxiety to many troops; just ask your state's Adjutant General. This provision would permanently eliminate the $8.10 daily subsistence charge imposed on wounded servicemembers who are hospitalized. I want to take Chairman Bill Young's praiseworthy idea to eliminate the daily subsistence fee and make it the law, rather than a temporary, FY 2004-only, fix. Requires separate campaign medals for service in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. I believe the men and women who risked their lives to depose Saddam's regime deserve recognition that is distinct from the recognition we rightly award to those who successfully fought the Taliban in Afghanistan. Directs DOD to provide maximum advance notice to mobilized Guard and Reserve personnel on the timing and duration of their duty. * * * * * Provides $25 million for SBA grants for vocational or technical training for reserve-owned small businesses. For the same reason I believe we should offer low-interest loans to distressed Guardsmen and Reservists, my amendment would also fund a modest program of grants to reservists who need them.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I am flattered. I hope this means we are about to close the deal.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can accomplish some of this before that bill comes out of committee.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, some parts of this clearly are germane and applicable, even under the rule that prohibits us from legislating on an appropriations bill. I would say to the chairman, who I have great respect for, this bill should have gone, the $87 billion bill has enough policy in it, enough money in it that it should have gone through the typical two-step process. The authorizing committee should have had a hand in it and we did not. We asked for it and did not have that opportunity. In light of that, I would ask him to take a broader view of what happens here on the House floor in the appropriations process to acknowledge the fact that we did not get a chance to put it through committee and, therefore, give us a chance to make a little bit of law, which is not very complicated law. Most of this stuff has been around a long time. We whittled down a package of old ideas to deal with inequities and deficiencies and shortcomings in personnel policy. This stuff has been around a long time. It is not complicated. There is no reason we should not be able to add it to an appropriations bill. As my colleague knows from writing many appropriations bills, there are often a lot more complicated authorizations in it than this particular one.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment actually consists of a number of different provisions, all designed to enhance the quality of life of our troops, the men and women in the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not believe that these brave Americans should be left out of this supplemental. Read this $87 billion bill, however, and we will find there is very little in it for them. We will find every conceivable benefit for Iraq and Iraqis; but we will find very, very little for our own troops, and these are the ones who won the war in 3 weeks. These are the ones who saved Iraq from catastrophe in postwar chaos. These are the ones who right now are carrying out the reconstruction of Iraq, a thankless job in which they take casualties almost every day. These provisions that I offer in this amendment would lighten their burdens just a bit, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and, to some extent, ease their families' burdens back home. These provisions would say thank you. They have not been able to savor victory because of the chaos that followed the war. It would say to them, we appreciate and understand and are grateful for what you are doing. The cost, the cost is less than 1 percent of this entire package. Surely we can scrub this package down and provide 1 percent as a way of saying thank you to our troops. What is in it? Hostile fire pay, imminent danger pay, combat pay. The chairman of this subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Defense, last year raised imminent danger pay and raised family separation pay, to his great credit. Let us make it permanent. Let us take imminent danger pay and raise it up to $250. Add that to family separation pay, and it means every time a father or a mother goes into a field of combat and is faced with shots fired at them every day, if they are in imminent danger, they will get $500. I do not think that is too much to ask. The Pentagon wanted the increase in imminent danger pay and family separation pay to revert to its prior level. Once again, the Subcommittee on Defense did not stand for that. The Pentagon then said, let us, instead of paying imminent danger pay, have hardship pay, and requested that it be increased up to $600 a month. It is discretionary with the commanders; it has to be approved by the Department of Defense. It would have provided this in lieu of family separation pay or at least in lieu of imminent danger pay. It is a bad idea. But I picked up on the basic idea, if the Pentagon thinks that discretionary pay like this for living in abysmal, miserable conditions ought to be raised to $600 so that the division commander will have at his disposal and use at his discretion with Pentagon approval, then let us do it, and that is what this particular amendment would provide. Several years ago, provision number three, we set out to say to those enlisted personnel who have families and live off base, we want you to be able to live off base with your base housing allowance and not have to dig into your own pocket to pay some of the costs. We have gradually, step by step every year, implemented this plan. We simply say here, to ease the burden on the families back home, we are going to implement it all together next year instead of making you wait 2 years. Family assistance centers. There are lots of Reservists and Guard personnel. You have had them call you. They have called me. They have got problems. They are stressed out. They have businesses they owned and they are finding it hard to operate because a family member has been deployed. This would provide the family assistance centers who help these folks with money that it is acknowledged they are short of, $48 million short. This would give them $48 million to meet the needs of the Guard and Reserve who call on them frequently. If you have been to Iraq, you know that the troops, when you meet with them, all tell you that the telephone service is pretty spotty. Some feel that they are being scalped. Some feel that they cannot get to telephone or Internet, not nearly easy enough, in any event. We say to this we want DOD to correct that, and we want to give the troops access to a discounted telephone card, at least up to $50 a month. Here is one that is really popular. And I think it will probably emerge as part of this bill. But let us say tonight, we give it some recognition on the House floor. I went to Bosnia several years ago, and the biggest complaint I found amongst troops there who had been deployed for longer than they expected was that even though they got R&R in some cases, they would go back to Fort Bragg or somewhere like that, and they would get dropped in and it was on them, it was up to them to get home to El Paso or Fresno, California, wherever it might be. The proposal is very simple. When we give troops R&R, let us give them a ticket to go all the way and come all the way back. It costs a little money, but it is the least we can do. We had very affecting testimony before our committee by General Jack Keane, very affecting testimony. He told of going out to Walter Reed and seeing a soldier who was blind and lost one arm. He said we want to provide transition assistance to these soldiers. We provide that transition assistance. This is a package full of things that have been whittled down. They are good provisions. I know what the gentleman is about to say. I wish I could talk him into accepting this, but if he does not accept it on a point of order, a technicality, I hope he will remember some of these things in conference.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to vigorously support the quality-of-life provisions, the very modest quality-of-life provisions, but important provisions that my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, has included in this bill. I would say that we have worked together to develop many of these proposals. We have winnowed them through several different processes, the personnel subcommittee, the Democratic side of the personnel subcommittee, the House Armed Services Committee. Go through this bill, $87 billion. It does all manner of things for Iraq and the Iraqi people, the Iraqi army, the Iraqi police force, and ask what it does for our troops. They are the ones who not only won the war, but in the aftermath of the war when there was a real vacuum, through improvisation saved the day. They are the ones who, right now, are the foot troops who are putting Iraq back together. They have been called for hard duty, they have been asked to extend their tours, and the least we can do for them and their families is to show some concern and say thank you, and that is what these provisions do. First of all, we know that family assistance centers which help Reservists, many of whom have had their tours extended, help their families deal with problems, are underfunded by $50 million. This corrects that deficiency. Secondly, we know, if we have been there, that one of the chief complaints is the inability just to call home and talk to your family. In this era of telecommunications, it is the least we can give our troops, and this bill provides $50 million to help our troops call home and stay in touch with their families. Transportation costs. The biggest complaint in Bosnia, the biggest complaint, you have been to Bosnia, all of you have been to Bosnia, all of you have been to Iraq. The biggest complaint was R&R is great, but if you are at Fort Bragg and happen to live in El Paso, it can cost you an arm and a leg if you are an E-6 or an E-7 to get home. And so this bill provides the money to fly all the way home and get back to your duty station. Finally, funds are provided for transition assistance for disabled service members. Many of us have been out to Walter Reed. A very affecting piece of testimony was given by General Jack Keane, where he recounted the case of a blind GI who had lost one limb, who cannot be reintegrated back into the Army, but he said, let me tell you something, we're going to see that this GI, wounded as he is, gets reintegrated into society. We're going to help him get to school, we're going to give him a mentor, help him every step of the way. The problem, and I take General Keane at his word, there is no money to provide for that. This bill would provide for that. These are four modest provisions. The least we can do for our troops is to support this package and help our troops.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, today I am honored and privileged to recognize one of the finest officers in the United States Air Force, recently promoted General T. Michael ``Buzz'' Moseley. For the past two years, General Moseley has served with distinction in one of the most demanding Air Force positions: Commander, Ninth Air Force, Air Combat Command, which is headquartered in my district in Sumter, South Carolina. In that post he also served as Commander, United States Central Command Air Forces, United States Central Command. During his tenure, he prosecuted two of the most successful air campaigns in modern history, raising the bar for the optimum employment of air and space power in joint armed conflict. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, General Moseley took command of U.S. Central Command's air component. In this role, he provided air and space power for the Command's 25-nation area of responsibility that reaches from the Horn of Africa, across Iraq and Afghanistan, to the southern states of the former Soviet Union. At the peak of Operation Enduring Freedom, General Moseley directed over 11,000 combat sorties responsible for destroying over 4,600 Taliban and al Q'aeda targets--in support of our nation's war on terror. When U.S. forces had the terrorist organizations and their supporters on the run, the Central Command's focus shifted to sustaining our efforts to bring relief to the long-oppressed Afghani people. In the initial humanitarian phase, nearly 200 airdrop sorties were flown, delivering 2.4 million daily rations and nearly 1,900 tons of blankets and rice. Following the successes of Operation Enduring Freedom, General Moseley was called upon to provide General Franks, now the former Commander of U.S. Central Command, with air power guidance and expertise as the planning and preparation intensified for military action that would eventually remove the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. From logistics to civil engineering, readiness of personnel to sensitive theater engagement with friendly foreign allies, the air component's methodical preparation for Operation Iraqi Freedom was simply spectacular. The logistical train paved the way for the employment of nearly 30,000 air-to-ground weapons and air refueling offloads totaling more than 417 million pounds of fuel--enough to keep a Boeing 737-300 airborne for almost 12 years. As the logistical buildup steadily progressed, civil engineers and contractors were busy executing over 350 million dollars in facility upgrades at our friendly host nations' airfields, bolstering their ability to support the pending wartime taskings. Employing thoughtful and polished diplomacy, General Moseley negotiated basing rights at 24 Arabian Gulf airfields and overflight rights for the coalition's 1,800 aircraft and over 1,350 cruise missiles, assets that were pivotal to conducting the air campaign on terms favorable to American and Coalition national security interests. At the peak of hostilities against the former Iraqi regime, nearly 55,000 United States Air Force personnel were deployed under General Moseley's control. These preparatory actions led to the successful execution of the coalition's overwhelming effort to free the people of Iraq from the clutches of Saddam Hussein. In overthrowing the regime, aircraft from our Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps was coupled with the air power of our coalition allies from the United Kingdom and Australia to execute the most successful air campaign in history. During the course of the 21-day campaign, General Moseley directed 41,000-plus sorties and was responsible for striking nearly 20,000 Iraqi targets--an astounding feat that is a testament to General Moseley's impeccable combat leadership. To this day, the outstanding men and women of the United States Central Command Air Forces continue to support Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, promoting and maintaining American interests in the region and reconstructing two pivotal countries where our efforts must not fail. While the majority of our air and space force have returned home from the Middle East and Central Asia, over 17,000 airmen remain deployed. They are serving under the most arduous conditions in Southwest Asia, defending the victories of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The continued sacrifices of these great Americans carries on our Nation's commitment to the security and prosperity of the region. I was truly pleased with the President's recent nomination and the United States Senate's confirmation of General Moseley for his fourth star. It is exceptionally well-deserved, and I want to offer my congratulations to him; his wife, Jennie; their son, Greg; and their daughter, Tricia. I am proud to represent my fellow South Carolinians-- citizens who have understood the meaning of sacrifice since the formation and creation of the United States--in thanking General Moseley and his family for their selfless dedication, commitment, and sacrifice. General Moseley is a credit to both the United States Air Force and the United States of America. I wish him the best of luck in his assignment as Vice Chief of Staff, Headquarters United States Air Force. I am confident of his continued success in his new position and look forward to seeing him back here in our Nation's capital.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, South Carolina is an unenviable host to one of the largest concentrations of military-generated radioactive waste in our country, if not in the world. There are over 37 million gallons of highly-radioactive waste stored in 49 single-lined tanks at the Savannah River site. This waste contains over 400 million curies of radioactivity and represents potentially the single most hazardous threat to the environment and to the people of South Carolina and Georgia, and for that matter, the whole region because it sits atop the Tuscaloosa aquifer. There are millions more gallons of this kind of waste stored at DOE sites from upper New York State to Washington State. Over the years, the Department of Energy has worked with these States, my own State of South Carolina, to develop plans to manage the waste by separating out the highly-radioactive contents, transform it into a glass waste solid, suitable for shipment to a national repository for ultimate disposal, and until then, store it on-site in a special interim storage facility. The remaining waste, the residue containing relatively small amounts of radioactivity, is supposed to be mixed with a special sort of concrete and disposed of on-site. Recently, the Department of Energy proposed to dispose directly of approximately 20 million additional curies of this high-level radioactive waste right there on-site, at the Savannah River site, which is a major change in plans. This amount of waste on-sight will require about 300 years of oversight and maintenance. The Department of Energy, DOE, however, ran into a problem with this approach. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires this type of high-level waste to be disposed of at a national repository. So to implement that proposal, the Department decided simply to reclassify the waste. They would not call it high-level waste anymore. Well, they ran into another problem. The United States District Court ruled that the DOE order reclassifying this waste violated the statutory law, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The four affected States, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and South Carolina, all filed briefs in opposition to DOE's proposal and in effect they prevailed. South Carolina, along with three other States involved in the district court action, has offered through a joint letter with the other States to the Secretary of Energy to work with the Department of Energy to develop a waste classification strategy that will ensure effective and cost effective and timely disposal of high-level waste in a matter that is consistent with the court decision. We are not trying to hold anybody up. I can assure you that the House Committee on Armed Services, on which I sit, is willing to work with the Department of Energy in next year's authorization process to address this matter in the proper form, with hearings, with questions and with the right kind of legislation. But instead of engaging in earnest, the Department decided to appeal the district court decision but also to come to Congress with this proposal, to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to allow DOE to determine how much high-level waste it can reclassify and directly dispose of it at several sites, including the Savannah River site. These provisions were not included in either bill, House or Senate. There were no hearings in either committee, House or Senate. This was to be added to the conference report as an out-of-scope provision. If enacted, this proposal would allow DOE virtual carte blanche to reclassify high-level radioactive waste. This will create lower standards for storing, lower standards for treating, lower standards for processing these radioactive materials, making it all the more likely that some day a dreaded accident will occur, and we will have irreparable harm done to our ground water, our streams, the Tuscaloosa aquifer, affecting not just South Carolina but Georgia and much of the Southeast. It should not come as any surprise, therefore, that the attorneys general of all four States have vigorously objected in writing to DOE's legislative proposal. In fact, these AGs have called the changes wholly unnecessary. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, to change a law as important as the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in this manner, at the 11th hour, without hearings, without a full discussion by all the stakeholders as an out- of-scope provision to a conference report, is inappropriate in this case, and is a precedent that we, as a Congress, should not create for future cases. So I commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for his motion; and I urge every Member of the House on both sides of the aisle to vote to add this instruction to the conferees on the pending bill.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable achievement. In May of this year, the Clemson Tigers men's golf team from my great State of South Carolina won the NCAA Division I golf championship in dramatic fashion, edging out the Oklahoma State Cowboys by two strokes on their own course. The team was led by Senior D.J. Trahan, the number one ranked college golfer for much of this year, and Sophomore Jack Ferguson, who was ranked in the top 25 for most of the year. Trahan finished 22nd with a four round 299 to become the only Clemson player ever with four top 25 finishes, and Ferguson finished 19th with a team best four round 298. Also anchoring the team were Junior Matt Hendrix, Junior Gregg Jones, and Senior Ben Duncan, who finished tied for 35th, 35th, and 52nd respectively. My hat goes off to Coach Larry Penley and the entire squad for their remarkable 124-8-3 record this year, and for bringing Clemson their first ever national golf championship. They have made your State very proud. It gives me greater pride to see that every member of the Clemson team makes their home in South Carolina. If this keeps up, we may start to see athletes drinking sweet tea instead of Gatorade. On top of their golf achievements, I am proud that each of these young men will leave with a Clemson academic degree. With that background, I am sure they will be as successful in life as they have been in golf.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I greatly respect the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, and I am grateful to see he has decided that he should support this resolution. I think it is timely, I think it is in order, and while the gentleman says that the pay level is fair and adequate, I would really argue that even with the increases, for the burdens these soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines bear, in hostile circumstances, this pay increment is really minimal. Last year, when we did the Iraqi supplemental, providing $79 billion for the war in Iraq and more for Afghanistan in the war against terror, $63 billion was allocated to Iraq. And, naturally, we said with soldiers about to go in harm's way, surely we should increase the minimal amount that is being paid to them right now, which was $100. That is all, $100 a month for family separation pay, and $150 for imminent danger pay. We increased those to $250 for family separation pay and $225 for imminent danger pay, but only for 1 year. Unless we act in the defense authorization bill to make this permanent law, as provided in the Senate authorization mark, then this will expire on September 30. And that would be a terrible calamity. Nevertheless, the Pentagon this summer issued a reclaimer to the committees in conference indicating that they thought that these two increments were too costly to sustain and recommended that they either be dropped or reduced. They met with a firestorm of protest, including a published statement from me and the ranking member on our committee, that I thought it would be outrageous at this point in time to do it. So tonight we can seal the decision and make it permanent law that these levels of incremental pay will be provided to soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who go in harm's way and are separated from their families. They get all the $475. The gentleman was saying he was in Iraq, and we all know when we go out in the field and we see these soldiers and sailors and airmen, we realize they do not work 8-hour days. They work 18-hour days, continually. And they never know whether danger might befall. The least we can do to help them is pay the way, particularly in the circumstances they now find themselves, doing duty they were not trained for. And a hard and bitter duty it is, in an inhospitable environment. The least we can do is to provide them this pay settlement. Let me make one more argument, though, if this were not enough, and that is we can either pay now or pay later. Because if we do not provide these increments and somehow or another help our deployed troops bear the burdens that we have imposed upon them, then we are going to pay for it in terms of recruitment and retention just over the horizon. We are going to be paying big reenlistment bonuses. We will be losing E6 sergeants, with the kind of training we need for years to come. We are going to be risking real damage, long-term damage, particularly to our ground forces. So it is only smart, not just fair, not just good policy, it is just smart personnel policy to continue these payments at the level that is established now in law and to make it permanent law.